| 18 Sep 2023 |
 WhiteBlackGoose | Hey there
Do we have a CoC? Can't find it anywhere | 11:09:46 |
 @qyliss:fairydust.space | not at present | 11:13:45 |
 vcunat | NixCon did have them: https://2023.nixcon.org/code-of-conduct/
(also at least some of the past ones) | 11:16:47 |
| WhiteBlackGoose | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.space
not at present May I ask why? | 11:44:54 |
| WhiteBlackGoose | There's a small unfolding drama with hyprland, a slight reminder why every big project needs a CoC, imo | 11:45:30 |
| vcunat | Oh https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/pull/44 | 11:50:36 |
 @linus:schreibt.jetzt | That's only for the foundation board though | 11:51:16 |
| @linus:schreibt.jetzt | There's an RFC for a community-wide code of conduct, https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/114 | 11:51:29 |
 Domen Kožar | I'd really like to see someone to work with the foundation and get us a project wide CoC | 11:52:57 |
| Domen Kožar | It's been clear in the past a number of times that we desperately need it | 11:53:36 |
| Domen Kožar | and we know we can't adopt one that everyone will like, but it will be 100x better than the current state | 11:53:58 |
| @qyliss:fairydust.space | it's not really the foundation's job imo | 11:54:12 |
| Domen Kožar | oh no, it's not our job as well, I mean just to work with us to make sure it happens | 11:54:37 |
| @qyliss:fairydust.space | ahh | 11:54:42 |
| Domen Kožar | * oh no, it's not our job at all, I mean just to work with us to make sure it happens | 11:54:42 |
| Domen Kožar | we can, hopefully, offer support by giving feedback and allocating resources (whatever that means) | 11:55:08 |
| @qyliss:fairydust.space | got it | 11:55:17 |
| WhiteBlackGoose | In reply to @domenkozar:matrix.org
and we know we can't adopt one that everyone will like, but it will be 100x better than the current state In the worst case, just adjust it later. Otherwise just borrow one from .net foundation or rust or the like and it will cover most potential issues | 11:56:41 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | I guess I have not brought this up in this particular room before, but: I do not think our lack of a CoC is the problem, I think it is merely a symptom. there have been repeated attempts in the past to introduce one, starting effectively with RFC 98 (which is rather important context to know why RFC 114 exists), and the people introducing it got burned out | 12:12:40 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | because of endless concern trolling and other bad-faith arguing from a limited but vocal set of community members, and lacking moderation of that at the time | 12:13:09 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | in other words: introducing a CoC is not a slam-dunk item to tick off the todo list, it is a process that has already been in progress for years, and that requires a lot of work to make it actually work in any meaningful way - sure, we can declare "we have a CoC now", but if there's neither enforcement nor community mindshare behind it, then that's just some words in a markdown file | 12:14:13 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | that's not to say it isn't important, just to highlight that it is neither the whole solution, nor an easy thing to just do, under the circumstances | 12:14:52 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I personally think it makes more sense to see the CoC as an artifact or output of the moderation/community process; a registration of common values that the community has, broadly, agreed upon. as opposed to something that drives those values | 12:21:23 |
| Domen Kožar | Oh, CoC won't solve any much problems beyond establishing the norms that moderation team has been enforcing. Essentially writing down things so that implicit becomes explicit.
There are many issues having a diverse community and we can't solve them at once, but with small steps in the right direction. | 12:29:54 |
| Domen Kožar | * Oh, CoC won't solve many problems beyond establishing the norms that moderation team has been enforcing. Essentially writing down things so that implicit becomes explicit.
There are many issues having a diverse community and we can't solve them at once, but with small steps in the right direction. | 12:33:30 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | in that specific framing "establishing the norms that the moderation team has been enforcing", I can agree that having a CoC is useful - but with the explicit understanding that a) indeed this will not solve all of our issues, and b) it serves as a de-facto/"temporary" CoC, a way to document the current moderation approach, but not as something that should inhibit future community-drafted work | 12:35:08 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (that last point doesn't really require any special action from the foundation, besides an acknowledgment that this is its purpose, to have something to point to in case future 'community standards' discussions run aground on "but we already have a CoC") | 12:36:01 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I guess a better summary would be: I have no problem with a CoC based on current practices, as long as it's clear to everyone involved that it is not definitive :) | 12:37:33 |
| Domen Kožar | Yeah, it wouldn't be set in stone, but a giant step from zero to 1 and opening the discussion on what needs to improve going forward. | 12:40:04 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | right | 12:45:57 |
